Assignment Guidelines with Scoring Rubric
Purpose
The purpose of this experiential learning activity is to apply nursing leadership knowledge and skills to plan for organizational change with system-wide impact. (COs 2, 3, 5)
Due Date
Total Points Possible: 250
Requirements
Description of the Assignment
This assignment provides the opportunity for the student to:
- Create an evidence-based plan for system-wide change guided by a selected organizational change model
- Engage in high-level decision-making processes common in the nurse executive role
- Use reflective practice knowledge and skills in making high level decision making and change management
Preparing the Assignment
- Address all components of the Advanced Communication in Systems Leadership paper as outlined under “Assignment Directions and Criteria”.
- The paper is graded on quality and completeness of information, depth of thought, organization following outline provided, substantive narrative, use of citations, use of Standard English, and writing conventions.
- Format:
- APA format, using most current edition, is required for citations and references in this assignment
- Required elements
- Title page, reference page
- Use Microsoft Word
- Page numbers, doubles-spaced, times new roman, 12pt font, 1” margins, level 1 headings
- Paper length: 7 maximum, excluding reference page and title page
- Required elements
- Scholarly sources
- Minimum of four (4) scholarly resources no older than 5 years (See: What is a Scholarly Source under APA resources)
- Proof-reading
- Use spell check and grammar check and correct all errors
- Compare final draft to detailed outline directions to ensure all required elements included
- Submitting the paper
- Submit to Week 2 Assignment portal by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT
- Must achieve TII score < 24% to be graded
- Final submission only will be graded
- APA format, using most current edition, is required for citations and references in this assignment
DIRECTIONS AND ASSIGNMENT CRITERIA
You will use the following headings for your paper:
- Approach to the organizational mandate
- Purpose of the paper
- Overview of the tasks, potential challenges, and implications of a reduction in workforce
- Part II: Reduction in Workforce-Deciding
- Using Human Resources (HR) metrics Table 1
- Approach, choices, rationale
- Challenges presented (including role of ethics)
- Using HR metrics with Relative Information Table 2
- Approach, choices, rational
- Challenges presented
- Conflicts raised
- Negotiation used
- Using Human Resources (HR) metrics Table 1
- Part III: Reduction in Workforce-Planning the Change
- Overview of reorganization plan including timeline
- Plan for change and application of Kotter’s or Rogers’ change model
- Anticipated conflict (three areas) and the benefits of using a change model
- Healthy work environment
- Describe department and system-wide implications, impact, and conflict
- Strategies for addressing morale and motivation of remaining workforce
- Summary/Conclusions
- Restatement of purpose
- Overview of tasks
- What was learned
Part I: Approach to the Organizational Mandate
In this section, provide a statement of purpose for the paper and overview of what will be covered in the paper, including the overview of tasks, potential challenges, and implications of a reduction in workforce in general.
Part II: Reduction in Workforce-Deciding
This section deals with the initial task of determining which employees that will be let go during the reduction in workforce. In Section A, you are to select the 10 positions based solely on the information in Table 1. The questions following the table address the content that should be included in your paper. Once completed, move to Section B, Table 2 and again address the content being asked in your paper.
Scenario
Roxboro Medical Center is a 200-bed inpatient facility located in a sprawling suburban area in the rural south. Until two years ago, it was the only medical facility within a 75-mile radius when The Jonas Center, a 100-bed day hospital and ambulatory care center, opened 25 miles away. Over the past two years, Roxboro has lost approximately 25% of its market share. The 10% drop last year was adjusted for through re-organization of the workforce, reduction in hours, attrition of employees through early retirement and changing jobs to the new facility. However, this year there has been an additional 15% decline in market share resulting in a dire need to reduce the workforce. Since Roxboro is restricted by mandatory staffing ratios, and last year they lost the maximum number of staff possible and still remain within regulatory compliance. The board of directors, CEO, and CFO have determined a 30% reduction in the management workforce across the hospital will be needed. The timeline for this to occur is over the next six (6) months. It will be up to the department heads to determine how they will reduce the positions and re-organize job duties.
Section A: Table 1: Human Resource Manager Work Metrics
You are the Chief Nursing Officer and have the largest number of management positions because yours is the largest department in the hospital. With a total of 33 positions that include house supervisors, unit managers, and charge nurses, you are being asked to reduce the total number by 30%, or ten (10) positions. Further attrition through job changes or retirement is not anticipated. Human Resources has established two criteria for the reduction in workforce (RIF). These are last hired and low performance. Each department is sent a chart that includes this information on employees who have been with the hospital 15 years or less and the performance rating for each.
Your table has no identifiers and while you might have an idea of who the people are, you have only positions information available. Your table looks like this:
| Roxboro Medical Center Human Resources Manager Work Metrics | |||||
| Position | Years since Hire | Time in Management | Performance Rating Ave/Recent | Unit Size/ number of beds | RIF or Stay Rationale |
| HS.1 | 10 | 3 years | High/High | ||
| HS.2 | 12 | 8 years | High/High | ||
| HS.3 | 15 | 12 years | High/Low | ||
| UM.1 | 6 | 2 years | High/High | ||
| UM.2 | 5 | 18 months | High/High | ||
| UM.3 | 4 | 2 years | High/Low | ||
| UM.4 | 7 | 5 years | High/Low | ||
| UM.5 | 10 | 9 mths | High/High | ||
| UM.6 | 15 | 5 years | High/Low | ||
| CN.1 | 5 | 1 year | High/High | ||
| CN.2 | 8 | 4 years | High/High | ||
| CN.3 | 3 | 2 years | High/High | ||
| CN.4 | 2 | 6 mths | Too soon to evaluate | ||
| CN.5 | 12 | 4 years | High/Low | ||
| CN.6 | 6 | 2 years | High/Low | ||
| CN.7 | 8 | 3 years | High/Low | ||
| *Performance evaluations are expressed as A/R = average for years in position/most recent year HS=House Supervisor: UM=Unit Manager; CN=Charge Nurse; |
Based only on the Human Resources given you in this table include the following information in your paper:
Who will you choose? Rationale?
What was your approach to making the selection?
How easy or difficult was it to make your decisions with only this information?
What challenges were presented in making these choices?
Section B: Table 2: Human Resource Manager Work Metrics with Related Information
The word is out that the RIF is going to occur though no details of the process have been shared with the employees. You’re getting calls frequently from some of the staff who want to know if they are in danger of being dismissed or sharing reasons why they can’t be.
Since making your preliminary decision of who to let go, and before you’ve made any announcements, you record the information you received from some of the staff and placed it in your table. Now the table includes the size of the units where each of these positions is located which will be important in the reorganization, and some of the personal information gleaned from telephone calls you’ve received. Having these pieces of information causes you to question your original decisions. The shaded area contains the information now known to you and is not part of the table that came from HR.
| Roxboro Medical Center Manager Work Metrics with Relative Information | ||||||
| Position | Years since Hire | Time in Management | Performance Rating Ave/Recent | Unit Size/number of beds | Relative information | |
| HS.1 | 10 | 3 years | High/High | 200 | ||
| HS.2 | 12 | 8 years | High/High | 200 | ||
| HS.3 | 15 | 12 years | High/Low | 200 | Finished nursing school together | Single grandparent; has custody of two grandchildren; 34 yo |
| UM.1 | 6 | 2 years | High/High | 20 | Daughter of nurse in another unit | |
| UM.2 | 5 | 18 months | High/High | 30 | Transferred from another unit after RIF last year | |
| UM.3 | 4 | 2 years | High/Low | 20 | On FMLA for past 4 months; pre-eclampsia for one month prior to leave | |
| UM.4 | 7 | 5 years | High/Low | 30 | Father is major contributor to dialysis center | |
| UM.5 | 10 | 9 mths | High/High | 15 | Husband is second shift informatics supervisor for last 18 mths; potential for RIF | |
| UM.6 | 15 | 5 years | High/Low | 30 | Negative attitude; slow to comply with changes | Single parent; one middles school child |
| CN.1 | 5 | 1 year | High/High | 30 | AONE Certified Nurse Manager | |
| CN.2 | 8 | 4 years | High/High | 20 | ||
| CN.3 | 3 | 2 years | High/High | 30 | Mentors new graduate nurses | |
| CN.4 | 2 | 6 mths | Too soon to evaluate | 20 | ||
| CN.5 | 12 | 4 years | High/Low | 20 | has moved up leadership ladder from LPN to CN with Roxboro | |
| CN.6 | 6 | 2 years | High/Low | 30 | Best friend was RIF last year | |
| CN.7 | 8 | 3 years | High/Low | 20 | Serves on Shared Governance Committee | |
| *Performance evaluations are expressed as A/R = average for years in position/most recent year HS=House Supervisor: UM=Unit Manager; CN=Charge Nurse; |
With the new information that is now in the table, how are your preliminary decisions changed?
Who will you choose? Rationale? What changes did you make to your original decision?
What was your approach to making the selection?
How easy or difficult was it to make your decisions with the additional information?
What challenges were presented in making these choices?
What role did ethics play in your choices?
Describe your internal conflict that occurred having this additional information.
How and with whom will you negotiate for your choices?
Part III: Reduction in Workforce-Planning the Change
The next part of your task is to reorganize/restructure the remaining workforce using the remaining employees. You were given a 6-month window of time to complete the RIF. This section deals with planning for the change.
Provide an overview of what the restructuring will look like, i.e. assuming you have 6 units and your workforce now consists of 23 management positions, how will you cover the units with the leadership and management needed.
Detail your plan for change using Kotter’s or Rogers’ change model that includes a timeline for implementation and a description of how decisions will be disseminated
Address three areas of anticipated conflict and how they can be mitigated through use of the change model
Part IV: Healthy work environment
This section addresses how a healthy work environment is maintained during a reduction in workforce. Describe the department and system-wide implications, impact, and potential conflicts that can occur with your RIF in general. Provide at two concrete strategies for addressing morale and motivation of remaining workforce.
Part V: Summary
The final section, summary should contain a restatement of purpose, and overview of what was accomplished, and what you learned from the process.
| Category | Points | % | Description |
| Approach to the organizational mandate | 30 | 30% | Purpose of the paper; Overview of the tasks, potential challenges, and implications of a reduction in workforce |
| Reduction in Workforce-Deciding Section A | 50 | 50% | Human Resources (HR) metrics Table 1 used; Approach to decision making, positions chosen identified, rationale for choices, ease or difficulty in making decision; challenges to decision-making presented |
| Reduction in Workforce-Deciding Section B | 50 | 50% | Human Resources (HR) metrics with Relative Information Table 2 used; approach to decision making; positions chosen identified with rationale including reasons for change; ease or difficulty in making decision, challenges to decision-making presented; role of ethics in choice; internal conflict described; negotiation for exceptions described |
| Reduction in Workforce-Planning the Change | 50 | 50% | Overview of reorganization plan; Plan for change and application of Kotter’s or Rogers’ change model; Anticipated conflict and the benefits of using a change model described |
| Healthy work environment | 30 | 30% | Describe department and system-wide implications, impact, and conflict; At least 2 concrete strategies for addressing morale and motivation of remaining workforce |
| Summary/Conclusions | 20 | 20% | Restatement of purpose; overview of tasks; what was learned |
| Scholarly support | 10 | 10% | Minimum of 4 scholarly sources no older than 5 years old |
| Writing conventions, format, and reference citations | 10 | 10% | Writing is clear concise without grammatical and spelling errors. All references are correctly cited (if applicable) and written. |
| A quality assignment will meet or exceed all of the above requirements. |
Grading Rubric
| Assignment Criteria | Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance | Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance | Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance | Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance | Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance | |
| Content Possible Points = 250 Points | ||||||
| Section One: Staffing Budget and FTEs | ||||||
| Approach to Organizational Mandate Purpose of the paper; Overview of the tasks, potential challenges, and implications of a reduction in workforce | 30 Points | 20 Points | 10 Points | 0 Points | ||
| Approach to Reduction in Workforce Case Study is clearly articulated and contains all the elements needed to address the situation presented in the scenario. | Approach to Reduction in Workforce Case Study is generally described and contains nearly all elements needed to address the situation presented in the scenario. | Approach to Reduction in Workforce Case Study is minimally described, generally stated and missing key elements needed to address the situation presented in the scenario. | Approach to Reduction in Workforce Case Study is absent or does not contain adequate elements to all the elements needed to address the situation presented in the scenario. | |||
| Reduction in Workforce-Deciding Section A Human Resources (HR) metrics Table 1 used; Approach to decision making, positions chosen identified, rationale for choices, ease or difficulty in making decision; challenges to decision-making presented | 50 points | 46 points | 37 points | 28 points | 0 Points | |
| All six (6) elements are addressed accurately and clearly articulated; | Five (5) of six (6) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining element generally addressed | Four (4) of six (6) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; other elements are generally addressed | Three (3) of six (6) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining elements are generally addressed | No elements are addressed with specificity; more than three criteria missing | ||
| Reduction in Workforce-Deciding Section B Human Resources (HR) metrics with Relative Information Table 2 used; approach to decision making; positions chosen identified with rationale including reasons for change; ease or difficulty in making decision, challenges to decision-making presented; role of ethics in choice; internal conflict described; negotiation for exceptions described | 50 | 46 | 37 | 28 | 0 points | |
| All six (6) elements are addressed accurately and clearly articulated; | Five (5) of six (6) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining element generally addressed | Four (4) of six (6) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; other elements are generally addressed | Three (3) of six (6) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining elements are generally addressed | No elements are addressed with specificity; more than three criteria missing | ||
| Reduction in Workforce-Planning the Change Overview of reorganization plan; Plan for change and application of Kotter’s or Rogers’ change model; Anticipated conflict (3 areas) and the benefits of using a change model described | 50 Points | 46 points | 37 points | 28 points | 0 Points | |
| All four (4) elements are addressed accurately and clearly articulated; | Three (3) of four (4) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining element generally addressed | Two (2) of four (4) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; other elements are generally addressed | One (1) of four (4) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining elements are generally addressed | No elements are addressed with specificity; more than three criteria missing | ||
| Healthy work environment Describe department and system-wide implications, impact, and conflict; At least 2 concrete strategies for addressing morale and motivation of remaining workforce | 30 Points | 24 points | 18 points | 12 Points | 0 points | |
| All five (5) elements are addressed completely, accurately, and are clearly articulated; | Four (4) of five (5) elements are addressed completely, accurately, and are clearly articulated; remaining element generally addressed | Three (3) of five (5) elements are addressed completely, accurately, and are clearly articulated; other elements are generally addressed | Two (2) of five (5) elements are addressed and clearly articulated; remaining elements are generally addressed | No elements are addressed with specificity; more than three criteria missing | ||
| Summary/Conclusions Restatement of purpose; overview of tasks; what was learned | 20 points | 16 points | 8 points | 0 points | ||
| All criteria are accurately addressed and clearly articulated | Two of three criteria are accurately addressed and clearly articulated | One of three criteria is accurately addressed and clearly articulated; OR all criteria are generally addressed | Criteria are minimally addressed; absent; or unrelated to the content of the paper | |||
| Scholarly support Minimum of 4 scholarly sources no older than 5 years old | 10 points | 8 points | 4 points | 0 Points | ||
| At least four (4) sources are no older than 5 years | Only three sources are no older than 5 years | Only two sources are no older than 5 years | Less than two sources are no older than 5 years | |||
| Writing conventions, format, and reference citations Writing is clear concise without grammatical and spelling errors. All references are correctly cited (if applicable) and referenced on reference page using correct APA rules and format. | 10 Points | 8 points | 5 points | 0 Points | ||
| No errors in any of the three elements of writing conventions, format, and reference citations | One error in any of the three elements of writing conventions, format, and reference citations | Two errors in any of the three elements of writing conventions, format, and reference citations | More than three errors in any of the three elements of writing conventions, format, and reference citations | |||
| Total Points | _____of 250 points | |||||
